Hi There!
I have to admit I haven't been following this thread that closely but I can't help feeling that there wouldn't be a Canada in this timeline. Unless there's been a massive amount of bad feeling between the UK and the FSA, then there's no driving psychological impetus to unification.
London would still probably want it, but without the example of the Civil War in the 1860s, I think the representatives of the province of Canada would find it pretty hard to convince the the Maritimers to join them. Even with pressure from London OTL, PEI and British Columbia took about four years to decide to join and Newfoundland didn't bother until 1949. The FSA just doesn't seem to be enough of a threat to British North America.
The reasons for the creation of the Canadian federation are given by Wikipedia (which agrees with other sources I have seen) as follows...
Wikipedia said:The move towards uniting the British North American provinces and territories began out of a number of concerns, one was English Canadian nationalism which sought to unite the lands into one country. Concerns over American expansion westward which could endanger the British colonies also helped foster a desire to formally unify the colonies. On a political level, the desire for the expansion of responsible government and elimination of the legislative union of Upper and Lower Canada, and their replacement with provincial legislatures in a federation. This last point was especially pushed by the liberal Reform movement of Upper Canada and the French-Canadian rouges in Lower Canada who favoured a decentralized union in comparison to the Upper Canadian Conservative party and to some degree the French-Canadian bleus which favoured a centralized union.
All of these pressures still exist in the ATL.
1) Nothing in the timeline would change the English nationalism which was a prime impetus behind unification efforts in Canada.
2) Even though the F.S.A. may be somewhat less powerful than the OTL U.S.A. was during this period, it still heavily outweighs Canada in population and industrial might, and thus would prove a dangerous adversary should it decide that Canada looks ripe for the taking. So the threat is still there, albeit to a lesser degree, but still a large threat.
3) The Act of Union of 1840, which forcibly united the French-speakers with the English-speakers in a single province, with the English speakers having the upper hand politically and seeking to forcibly assimilate the French speaking population, was passed before the POD of the timeline, so it still is there and creating impetus for a new federation in Canada.
So, given the fact that ALL of the factors which lead to the passage of the 1867 British North America Act, and the creation of the Canadian federation, are still there, why would Canada NOT form? It just doesn't make sense that it would not.
On another topic: Assuming *Canada does form, how would the free trade discussions with the FSA go. They didn't succeed OTL, but the FSA is much smaller and might find tarrifless access to Canadian resources very appealing. Of course, this would also mitigate agains the formation of a strong East-West federation in *Canada if there is no National Policy put in place. On the other hand, a *Canada with a National Policy should be much more able to compete successfully in the smaller Markets of the FSA. Interesting either way
David
Given that the anti-free-trade Whigs (and later Republicans) are the most powerful party in the F.S.A., my guess is that they still fail, as in OTL. Basically the same group of people who, in OTL, were in control of the U.S.A. after the Civil War, are in control of the F.S.A. in the ATL.